Slashdot Mirror
Comcast Appeals FCC's Net Neutrality Ruling
Ian Lamont writes "Comcast has filed a court appeal of an FCC ruling that says the company can't delay peer-to-peer traffic on its network because it violates FCC net neutrality principles. A Comcast VP said the FCC ruling is 'legally inappropriate,' but said it will abide by the order during the appeal while moving forward with its plan to cap data transfers at 250 GB per month."
I live in Australia, and I'd kill for a 250Gb plan that doesn't cost half of the average weekly wage.
You should note also, that those plans are for 50gb to about 100gb. We don't have 250gb caps here...
Have you looked into cyberonic (www.cyberonic.com)? I use them in San Francisco and my brother uses them in Upstate NY. Dryline adsl, 1 static ip + 5 more for an extra $15, no port blocking, great customer support. The few times I've called them (over 5 years of service), I've never been on hold for more than a few minutes and once, when they couldn't fix the problem immeadiatly they called me back when the tech who could help me got back from lunch.
but actively forging packets [eff.org], for any reason, should be punished severely.
I, for one, would prefer that my ISP quash P2P traffic, so that I don't have to share bandwidth with a community largely comprised of copyrighted-media thieves.
And I am not aware of a legal precedent for this "severe punishment" you refer to. The ISP owns the network and should be able to control what happens on it. Terms-of-use should be set forth in a contract between the owner and the end-user. If you don't like the terms - don't use the service.
If you don't have an alternative service, pony up the dough and create your own alternative.
If the government won't allow you to create an alternative - then who are you going to blame? (HINT: The government).
Mine is Good